Let me answer this as I am a season ticket holder with a BOX. AS well as the indoor box seating we have 4 seats on the balcony but why when your sitting down having dinner would you go outside to your seats especially if it's p..... down with Rain. Our attendance was verified but GMP and to be fair most home games are full, we just seem to have an awful lot of hospitality seating currently which can affect what looks like empty seats.
Manchester City - "Emptihad"
- Thread starter MyOnlySolskjaer
- Start date
Let me answer this as I am a season ticket holder with a BOX. AS well as the indoor box seating we have 4 seats on the balcony but why when your sitting down having dinner would you go outside to your seats especially if it's p..... down with Rain. Our attendance was verified but GMP and to be fair most home games are full, we just seem to have an awful lot of hospitality seating currently which can affect what looks like empty seats.
Dont know if this was posted earlier:
Man City announce record revenue of £500.5m for 2017/18
https://www.skysports.com/football/...-announce-record-revenue-of-500-5m-for-201718
Wtf. When Nike is paying them £45m/year, that ought to give us a yardstick of the actual value if they had non-Abu Dhabi, market-driven sponsors.
Man City announce record revenue of £500.5m for 2017/18
https://www.skysports.com/football/...-announce-record-revenue-of-500-5m-for-201718
Wtf. When Nike is paying them £45m/year, that ought to give us a yardstick of the actual value if they had non-Abu Dhabi, market-driven sponsors.
Nike deal is ending at the end of the season and there's a £50m a year deal with Puma allegedly lined up.
Ferran Soriano is a major reason why City are doing so well commercially. He was the man that completely transformed Barcelona's commercial activities. He grew Barca's revenue from €123 million to €308m during his time there.
That must sting them a bit considering we agreed a 75m a year deal all the way back in 2014.
Surely Rio or scholesy can slip in the "emptihad" when they are on Btsport!
You know, just drop it into conversation.
You know, just drop it into conversation.
Depends on what you are saying that success is. 99% of fans of all clubs are generally interested in what happens on the pitch, results and titles. Is success really decided by how many people attend a match? Is success measured by financial profit or loss? As confirmed in a recent study, most of the top clubs in England would still make a financial profit WITHOUT having any fans in their stadium because of all the TV money.
If you are judging success on the pitch itself, not even the most ardent Utd fan can ignore - since the takeover - 3 premierships, 1 FA cup, 3 League Cups & 2 Charity Shield (2 less charity shield and a Europa League short of you guys.
If you are judging success or failure at City only based on the attendances at the Emptihad, then certainly for the Champions League group stages, having 15,000 no shows for many of those games is a failure. No doubt many might regret going to those games if for some reason in the future, City drop out of the CL for a while.
But the reality is 99.99 of City fans do not care and the only people that seem to be bothered are our competitors. How sad is that!
Damn right! Soriano knows how to target the much needed commercial revenue and it is clearly Middle Eastern focused because of the profile of being aligned with the owners. £95m in 2008 - the year of the takeover and up to £500m within 10 years - a 500% increase. Don't forget that the Etihad deal is due to be reviewed in the next 2 years.
With respect, perhaps you might like to reconsider your blatant racist statement about the City owners.Perhaps you should also do a little bit of research about the City owners intentions. They have recently announced that the 1st ten years was phase one of their plan - build Man City into one of the top 10 sides in Europe, start winning trophies and titles on a regular basis along with build and create the City brand around the world by creating and acquiring clubs - such as in Australia, Spain, New York, Japan & Uruguay - and also create a top and highly profitable academy - PHASE 1 COMPLETE. Phase 2 - the next 10 years is to continue with the growth of the City brand around the world with further club acquisitions with the aim of adding another 5 clubs at least, double the size of the Academy, further re-develop the land around the Etihad, continue with the revenue growth, continue to be regular winners of major trophies and titles etc, etc, etc. I don't think you are going to see the owners going anywhere for a long long time. Every single business and industry they have invested in is not a generational time frame, but a lifetime and beyond investment.The City fans are a disgrace. These self entitled blue wankers think attending Champions League games is too good for them when they are arsed enough to attend, they boo the anthem all because they think they hard done by. How many of these wankers envisaged the nights their club get to play against Bayern, Real, Barcelona, Juventus from just over ten years ago? They are spoilt by the Arab slave owners pumping billions so when the day they stop putting in their oil cash and feck off for good, maybe these City plastics will regret being ungrateful to the grandest competition in world football when they go back to slumming with Millwall, Bristol, and Wigan.
As to us fans, you are absolutely right, the attendances at the CL games are poor (unless it is the likes of Bayern, Real, Barca etc) - and yes WE ARE SPOILED - and we love it.
The point about phase 1 is total BS. Mansour would have expected you to be much further along than you are for the investment that was made. You have failed to retain the League or qualify for a CL final. To boost the clubs profile a CL win is needed. It will be especially galling for your owner that Liverpool managed to contest a CL final last season on a much smaller budget. Your academy is also nowhere near to being profitable. It cost £200M & you have brought in nowhere near this in academy sales. You also do not have anyone from the academy playing regular first team football.
Phase 2 is a very long way off. City are still not profitable & remain reliant on the financial backing of your owner (This is all said in your latest financials) At the moment all clubs in the City group are running up huge losses. It would be folly to continue with this business plan as it clearly isn't working.
Anyone who has followed City for any length of time knows 1 thing. The club is the GOAT at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. You had everything set up for you after the 1st PL win. You would have gone on to dominate. The kick in the bollocks was just around the corner though with the news that you'd cheated FFP. The rest as they say is history. It is impossible for you to build for long term success as disaster is just around the corner. It is stitched into the fabric of your club.
As usual living up to your user name.
We are profitable.. you can cry about it and act the wum all you want, in the words of Rafa its a fact.
- Whats Liverpool contesting a CL final got to do with City?
- Our academy has now produced plenty of footballers playing at good sides around Europe and has taken back over £70m of the investment in the last 2 seasons on player sales alone.
- Just 13 of your last 15 posts are about City, surprised you managed a post about anyone else.
- 55 of your 64 posts on here are about City.
- Have you actually got an opinion on United? you've posted about them maybe twice since you celebrated winning the derby
- You're most certainly not "bitter", ironic really given the nicknames United fans give to City.
- You're a United fan on a United board and all you talk about is City (99% of it pure rubbish), I feel sorry for you.
Denis running through Denis house at 4am: "AAAAAAAAAAAgggggggggggggguuuuuuuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooo!"
Denis mom: "Denis my boy are you ok?"
Denis: "I'm fine mommy really. I had that dream again."
Denis mom: "The one where you're Martin Tyler?"
Denis (looking ashamed): "Yeah that one..."
Denis mom: "Denis my boy, I think its time to admit it."
Denis: "No mommy, NO!!"
Denis mom: "Denis, you're obsessed, I think you're a blue in denial."
Denis: (sticks fingers in his ears) "No.. no... no..."
Mom brings Denis back to his bedroom... Denis has been sleepwalking again, it looks like a scene from a horror movie...
Whats that written on the wall?
"93.20" written on the wall about 100000000000000 times in blue crayola. (good job its washable)
Denis mom: "Is that... that time Aguero?"
Denis mom: "You need help"
Denis: "It's ok mom, I'll go on Red Cafe tomorrow and show the world how much I love City and hate United..."
Denis: "I... I mean, how much I love United and hate City."
Denis mom: "....."
Denis mom: "Night, night little boy blue."
Stopped reading after the first couple of lines & you quoted the FSW.
I'm not sure why you fail to grasp the fact that City are not a profitable business. If i buy something for £50 & sell it for £10 i have not made a £10 profit. Mansour has put £58M of his own money into City & got £10M back. He has not made a £10M profit, no way no how. This doesn't even take into account the dodgy sponsorships, loss dumping onto other clubs in the group & paying wages through holding companies.
As for the academy. If the figure you quote is true the academy is still £130M in the Red. I posted in response to the OP that the academy was nowhere near profitable. Going off the figures you quote this is true. You also have to factor in that a large chunk of the £70M comes from selling the great new hope Iheanacho. The fee you received was insane considering he can't get a starting slot in a Leicester team. It's highly unlikely other clubs will make the same mistake as Leicester & pay huge money for your average academy players.
I'm not sure why you fail to grasp the fact that City are not a profitable business. If i buy something for £50 & sell it for £10 i have not made a £10 profit. Mansour has put £58M of his own money into City & got £10M back. He has not made a £10M profit, no way no how. This doesn't even take into account the dodgy sponsorships, loss dumping onto other clubs in the group & paying wages through holding companies.
As for the academy. If the figure you quote is true the academy is still £130M in the Red. I posted in response to the OP that the academy was nowhere near profitable. Going off the figures you quote this is true. You also have to factor in that a large chunk of the £70M comes from selling the great new hope Iheanacho. The fee you received was insane considering he can't get a starting slot in a Leicester team. It's highly unlikely other clubs will make the same mistake as Leicester & pay huge money for your average academy players.
I don't know whether you genuinely believe this horseshit or you're just taking a piss, but either way it's hilarious.
After Chelsea's take over 16 trophies have been won. Mansour must be feeling like a sucker.
I would imagine he struggles to sleep at night.
You didn't stop reading you read it all and had no counter argument, cause you don't know your numbers.. you should though given all the shit you serve up about City with zero grounding in reality, a little reading on a subject goes along way.
You're the one who can't grasp profit. City had a profit now 4 or 5 seasons in a row, its a fact you should actually read up on this stuff... its not rocket science. You're again spouting rubbish and can't grasp which one is a man and which is a football club, Mansour is not MCFC... he's the clubs owner but not the actual club... Manchester City made a profit of £10m. I personally couldn't give a shite about how Mansour fares out of this (nor appearantly can he). Its pretty much everywhere in black and white. Given how much you care about City, you should at least read up on facts and figures.
Yes my figure is true because unlike your good self I actually know what I'm talking about...
Fwiw, we've gotten 10m for Angus Gunn, 9m rising to a potential 12+ for Pablo Maffeo. Unal 12m Angelino 5m, Denayer 5m with clauses..
Your logic with Iheanacho is downright non existent... should we have written the Ronaldo money off for United (because it was used for years in the net spend champions argument which funnily enough is something you guys say is absurd now..). "Oh, that deal doesn't suit my argument so I'm gonna dismiss it as a fluke". How much do you think Foden or Brahim Diaz would go for on the current market? Someone like Adarabioyo?
Of course the academy hasn't paid for itself yet, its was a huge investment made .. These things aren't done in a day. It's been 4 years and it has already paid off almost half its cost. What did you expect? It open doors at the end of 2014 and have world class players coming out every day? Has any club ever had that?
Oh dear Denis. I assume that you do not run your own business, because a Trading Profit has absolutely nothing to do with the cost price of an item and what is was sold for. Firstly Mansour has actually put in something in the region of £500m of his (or his investment company's money) and most importantly, the money is NOT A LOAN and does not require paying back - unlike your owners you borrowed close on £700m to buy your club and as of your current accounts, your club still has debt of nearly £500m, whilst your owners have been taking out approx £50m per year for themselves and paying something like £40m each and every year back to the banks that they borrowed the money from.
If I buy a business for £10,000 and then have a revenue of £1,000 in the first year, I have not made a £9,000 loss. If I achieved that revenue with a running cost of £500, then that business has made a £500 profit. So for Man City, he has invested £500m and if that business is openly valued at approx £2.45bn (according to Forbes) and based on the fact that the Chinese Government investment vehicle purchased a 13% stake in Man City for approx £230m, endorses this. Likewise, Man United is valued at £4.1m by Forbes.
Same goes for your business ignorant view that the Academy is losing money. irrespective of what it cost to set up, currently with its running costs, it is making a significant profit each year on its trading performance. The trading profit has nothing to do with its assets ie: the Academy itself and the value of all the players in the academy. May I suggest suggest the following reading for your education -
https://www.bookdepository.com/Busi...348185?ref=grid-view&qid=1538088300380&sr=1-2
er, Chelsea's takeover was 6 years earlier than City's takeover. Perhaps wise to wait to 'compare' success when we reach the same 16 year period that you are referring to. I think you will find than Mansour feels entirely the opposite. His investment company, that also owns City, is quoted by Forbes, to have a value of over $1 Trillion Dollars and therefore Man City represents less than 0.1% of their investment portfolio. I think he is a happy man
Facts don't lie. Soriano is the financial director of the City group and he has been responsible for most of the financial growth. Global partners that he has been responsible for bringing on board include Nike, Nexen Tire, Nissan, Esitalat & Aabar, amongst many others, totalling about 100++ sponsorship partners, many of which are from the Middle East. Facts are facts buddy.
Lol. When we got bought we won two leagues on the bounce. Let's face it for the money you have spent you have underachieve in the winning trophies and being considered one of europes elite. For many years we were the highest ranked english team in uefa rankings.
So if Soriano, the business genius that he is, was hired by, let's say, Arsenal or Chelsea instead of City, financially they'd be in the same position City are now?
Last edited:
[QUOTE="burnageboy, post: 23113188, mFirstly Mansour has actually put in something in the region of £500m of his (or his investment company's money) and most importantly, the money is NOT A LOAN and does not require paying back - unlike your owners you borrowed close on £700m to buy your club and as of your current accounts, your club still has debt of nearly £500m, whilst your owners have been taking out approx £50m per year for themselves and paying something like £40m each and every year back to the banks that they borrowed the money from.
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly how your fecking shit house club is ruining football!
fecking hell, who let all the Shitty fans in this place?
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly how your fecking shit house club is ruining football!
fecking hell, who let all the Shitty fans in this place?
Given the resources, backing and support he has been given at City, why not? Look what he did for Barcelona? Soriano joined then in 2003, increased revenue from 123m euro to 308m euro and took then from a loss of 73m to a profit of 88m. Clearly he was given the backing and support at Barca. His track record speaks for itself and yes, he is certainly a business mastermind.
You guys were already hugely successful before the Glazers took over. City, were probably not even a 20th the size in terms of success on and off the field. In our first year of the takeover, just because we spent 35m on Robinho, we were hardly going to immediately start winning trophies.
But with regards your statement about City actually underachieving in the 9 years since the takeover, you are just being dis-ingenious, which is fine coming from a rival. Of course you were amongst the highest ranked english team in Uefa rankings, but that was 8/9 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying City are a more successful or larger club than Utd, by a long long long way. It is going to potentially take another 15++ years to possibly be at the same level as you.
But time is a great leveller. Since our take over, we have gone from nowhere on the Uefa rankings to 8th and you guys have gone from 4th to as far out as 20th. Since the take over, we have won as many Premiership titles as you guys and are most certainly considered one of Europe's elite (which I would consider to be the top 10 sides in europe). We have a very long way to go, but the facts and evidence confirm that we are going in the right direction. And getting back to the theme of this article, we are way behind in terms of supporter levels and will continue to not fill our stadium for alot of games and sell less prawn sandwiches than you guys.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're seriously comparing 2003-08 Barcelona with your club? We're talking about one of the world's most prestigious clubs that had at the time the most talented generation of players in the world along with the world's best player in Messi. They were dominating La Liga and won a couple of CL titles in that period. Barcelona reaped the financial benefits of being the dominant force on the pitch, a team full of world class stars that were well-known all across the globe and were winning trophies while playing an entetaining attacking style of football. You don't have to be a genius to figure out how attractive they were as a marketing opportunity to major corporations given their global acclaim and popularity.
City, on the other hand, is a club that had been relegated to the third tier of English football only a decade before it was bought by the sheikh. Their success on the pitch since the takeover has been decent, but not outstanding, given the money spent. Chelsea, for example in the same period of time won the same amount of league titles, and bagged a CL trophy. And yet their numbers are nowhere near City's. To think, that all that because they missed out on Ferran Soriano, the business mastermind. Oh, what might have been.
Last edited:
Check your stats again we were 4th up until Jose 2nd season disaster. Which is 3 years ago i think. And we have won 5 pl titles to your 3 add the multiple fa cups league cups plus EL and CL. Plus we have made regular final appearances. at this moment you guys have an advantage but how many seasons have we been hearing this City will dominate City will dominate but you fail to do so. Last season you guys dominated rightly so and broke our records you deserved that.
I might be bias but as a Chelsea fan and knowing us if their is any club that can beat you guys to the title it's not liverpool it's Chelsea. Theirs a reason why Pep said when you guys beat us last season at the bridge you felt that you can win the league. When we're good, we're really good when we're shit we're really shit.
This time around City has the tools the players and the managers but as Lyon and Wolves show, if teams decide to get in your face and don't concede before kick off you guys can be beaten.
I have checked my facts. Since the City takeover, Chelsea have won 3 PL, United have won 3 PL and City have won 3 PL.
Furthermore, just before the City takeover, United were consistently successful as were Chelsea, though not to the same degree, but competing for trophies and in the CL. But my point in general is that it is absurd to suggest that City are now not considered amongst the elite in the Premiership and Europe and over another 10/20 year period, which is really how we all really measure true success, City are very likely to pull up closer to the title and trophy records of Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool. I also think that you will find it is not the majority of City fans that have ever suggested that City are going to 'dominate' anything. As is the case for virtually every successful club, the press love to hype up and drag down at every opportunity. But up until 9 years ago, the top four and PL title was the domain of Chelsea, Utd and Arsenal. In the last 9 years, Chelsea and Utd are still there and now City are taking an equal share. This is by no means dominance and no city fan in their right mind would consider it to be so, but you must surely acknowledge City are now part of the fabric of the top sides and whilst last season might well end up being a freak season in terms of Records, those records and facts are undeniable.
That all said, the theme of this thread is generally correct. City are a long way behind Utd, Chelsea & Liverpool in terms of consistent support at our ground and as I say above, City have to earn their support by a consistent level of success over the coming 10/20 years to be filling the ground week in week out. For this season, I also agree that the top spot is open to 3 or 4 teams and it will be a much closer battle than last season.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I am not comparing the 2003-2008 Barcelona with City. What I am saying is that yes, Barcelona were already world class and building a success commercial side of the business on the back of that, was not necessarily a difficult job for a competent CEO. Then based on the fact that Ferran came to City with its derisory history of success over the previous 30++ years, makes it all the more impressive that he was essentially making a standing start on the back of having only 2-3 stellar names to work from. You cannot tell me that based on the turnaround from 100m to 500m in 6 years+ based on what he had to work with in nothing less than genius. Chelsea's commercial growth is good, but like Utd, you have been consistently successful in the last 20+ years anyway and building on that bass line is surely easier to do so than from an effective standing start and in fairness, in terms of commercial growth, the facts show that City have overtaken Chelsea in the last 2-3 years, by about 10%-15% and whilst that will probably stay at the same margin, it has happened.
You cant compare the success in the 9 years since the City takeover with yours because you guys were already incredibly successful prior to that but from a standing start in 2008/9, you cannot deny that in terms of success on and off the field, City have pretty much caught up and are clawing in the shirt tails of United & Chelsea. Between 2008 and 2013/4, City spent just over 100m more than Chelsea, less than a 20% disparity. Chelsea have been consistently in the CL for 20++ years. City have only been involved in the competition for 7 years now. Let's see what City have achieved in the CL over a 20 year period and then compare it to Chelsea.
Given the history of recent success that Chelsea have had in the past 20 years, I do think that Ferran would have done a better job of increasing Chelsea's commercial activity.
This is exactly how your fecking shit house club is ruining football!
fecking hell, who let all the Shitty fans in this place?[/QUOTE]
Well as it is a thread about 'Shitty', then you should expect us to be rumbling around. Not quite sure why you are able to differentiate between your 700m of debt spending and City's 500m of non-debt spending as City ruining football. If you theory is that money ruins football, then you guys, along with City, Chelsea, Liverpool and many of the other now large spenders are all ruining it. But I will gladly take season's like last year by way of compensation
You keep contradicting yourself. If Chelsea had a head start on you and even after your takeover were as successful as City and even more so, given their CL win six years ago, how can you possibly explain City significantly outspending them and reporting income year after year? How can you possibly generate all that money? You're living in complete denial.
I can believe Barelona's figures because they were Europe's best side at the time and had the world's best players in abundance. Your 'magic turnaround' from 100m to 500m in 6 years is virtually impossible given your club's status before the sheikh bought it and what you've accomplished since. That's why I used Chelsea as an example. They've been even more successful than City and yet they can't even dream of those numbers. In fact, no club can, your net spend has been outrageous in the last five years or so. Even if you were winning PL every season for the last five years and were getting deep in the CL every year, you'd still not be able to reach those figures without massive help from your owner. That's just reality. And, by the way, why are you comparing the 2008-2014 period (still outspent Chelsea by 100m)? Is that because you don't want to factor in the absolute fortune your current manager spent since then?
Where did all that cash come from for Pep to buy a brand new squad? Have you noticed that you never sell any players with significant value to bankroll any of your transfer activities? How's that possible? Real Madrid have been winning the CL for three years running now and they couldn't generate the kind of growth City demonstrates even when they win sweet feck all. And we're supposed to believe it's all down to the fact that they didn't hire Soriano, and City did. OK, pal, you've convinced me.
I don't see why you can't grasp the most simple things. I spend £100 to start a business named AC Corp. The business then makes a loss in the first year. Whether you talk about AC Corp or me as an individual the fact remains that it is me that has lost money. You say Mansour isn't City but it's exactly the opposite. Without Mansour City ceases to exist.
You have world class players coming through you academy every day
Get a grip FFS. If you have so much talent in the academy why has Pep had to spend over £500 M Mansour has invested over £1 Bill into City so i don't know where you're getting £500M from. With our debt we are still in a better financial position than your club. Your club is totally reliant on 1 man & the decisions he makes. When he decides he's had enough of throwing his money away then you will go back to the way you were. We have the backing of a huge fan base, global appeal & legitimate huge revenues. There will be no shortage of potential buyers when the Glazers decide top sell. Utd may have a £500M debt but the asset is worth much more. In City's case though you are worth little on the open market as whether you are successful or not is due directly to the whim of your owner.
You guys keep on referring - purely in hope - that the Sheik is going to walk away. Just remember, his investment company has assets and cash of over $1Trillion and that the City group represents approx 0.1% of that investment. His investment company is going nowhere in your or my lifetime. Lastly, there is absolutely now doubt that United as a brand and asset is vastly bigger and stronger than City and virtually every other club in the world, but having owners who suck out £50/£75m+++ each and every year for themselves and leveraged debt from the many different banks to buy Utd in the first place, is not as solid as you might think. You need to get over yourself about so called legitimate revenues. Every large club is seeking more and more sponsorship and commercial revenue from every possible angle. You have Chevrolet at £53m a year and City have just signed Puma at £50m per year.I don't see why you can't grasp the most simple things. I spend £100 to start a business named AC Corp. The business then makes a loss in the first year. Whether you talk about AC Corp or me as an individual the fact remains that it is me that has lost money. You say Mansour isn't City but it's exactly the opposite. Without Mansour City ceases to exist.
You have world class players coming through you academy every day
You should be a politician as you deflected completely away from what I said. With regards the Academy, I stated that it was NOT possible to start generating world class players for a long long time and made no claim that City had generated any world class players via its academy. Also, virtually all modern academies are not all about finding players for the 1st team. They are about developing young players into players capable of playing at the top levels of football, whether it be for the home club or elsewhere.
Mansour has invested over £1 Bill into City so i don't know where you're getting £500M from. With our debt we are still in a better financial position than your club. Your club is totally reliant on 1 man & the decisions he makes. When he decides he's had enough of throwing his money away then you will go back to the way you were. We have the backing of a huge fan base, global appeal & legitimate huge revenues. There will be no shortage of potential buyers when the Glazers decide top sell. Utd may have a £500M debt but the asset is worth much more. In City's case though you are worth little on the open market as whether you are successful or not is due directly to the whim of your owner.
No doubt, Utd are a much bigger asset and business than City and will continue to be for another generation, possibly. But none of you can deny that City are slowly but surely catching up, which starts with revenue and then the management if that revenue
Real Madrid were already a huge success. Growth for almost any entity can have short/medium term hugely significant growth, but once a base is established, financial growth is going to be slow but methodical from that point forward. The only point I am trying to make in all of this is that City have been essentially attempting to catch up with the established successful clubs and by having Ferran on board, it has helped massively. He has a highly proven track record and no one can deny that he would be a massive asset at any club. Don't put words in my mouth. I never once suggested that City's financial & commercial growth was entirely down to Ferran but I am saying that put him in other top clubs, who were already successful, there is an extremely good chance that he could have grown the commercial revenues better than the current incumbents. Despite Chelsea having more success on the field compared to City (ie the CL) since city takeover, City have overtaken City on commercial revenue. FACT. I am not trying to convince you of anything. The facts should convince you.
I know the facts. No one denies that City reported a much bigger revenue than Chelsea. That's beside the point. This whole time I'm trying to explain to you that you cannot reach those numbers legitimately. It's not about your great marketing team or the genius of Soriano or even your success on the pitch, because none of that matters. You cannot generate the revenues you're reporting, in reality you are working at a huge loss every year. Most likely our Abu Dhabi based 'sponsors' are paying hugely inflated fees to the club, way above the market value. Not to mention City Football Group, which is just an elaborate business model serving as a smokescreen to satisfy FFP. CFG is nothing but a sham, designed to funnel revenues back to the central entity in Manchester and justify its enormous spending on players. The group, by the way, admitted that Manchester City, which benefits from the Premier League’s multibillion-pound TV contract is the only profitable club in its network. That's some great business plan, huh? And no, it's not suspicious at all.
He is not going to walk away as he has over £1 Billion tied up in MCFC alone. He is going to want that back 1 way or another. Your problem is when he decides to stop putting his own money in, directly & indirectly. You have to think of your club as a domino rally. When the first falls everything collapses. Mansour has no love for Manchester & City fans as a whole. This is made clear from the fact that he has been to 1 game in 10 years. He only attended this game as he was viewing property in the area & had nothing better to do. The richer people are the more they hate losing money. City are a leech that Mansour is trying to get rid of. When it becomes apparent that Mansour is no longer willing to subsidize the club then the domino's fall.
You have to remember that you are the smallest club in the top 6. If we lose sponsorships we have other companies lined up to take their place. You don't have that luxury as everything is tied to your owner. The Glazers were able to leverage the debt as Utd are a global brand. The banks knew they would get their money back. Do you honestly believe that if someone was going to buy City they would be able to do what the Glazers did at Utd. The banks would laugh them out of the room. If you have 2 companies with similar revenues then surely this shouldn't be the case though.
Last edited:
There is a theory that Guardiola's teams peak in his 3rd year at the club. Stats seem to back it up, even though they have played without KDB:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45787953
Think they haven't looked impressive in half of their games so far. But they aren't worse than last season either.
Now imagine that Jose turns it around and beats Guardiola this season. One of the best things about football is its unpredictability.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45787953
Think they haven't looked impressive in half of their games so far. But they aren't worse than last season either.
Now imagine that Jose turns it around and beats Guardiola this season. One of the best things about football is its unpredictability.
Last edited:
I don't know why people get so caught up in stuff like this as it just isn't going to change what happens on the pitch, and it's so full of conjecture and the making up of scenarious that may or may not happen, that it is completely pointless.
United will be a bigger club than City in 10 years in the same way Liverpool are still a bigger club than Chelsea, but find a single Chelsea fan that has lost a moment's sleep over that, or thought about it for a second during any of their league wins since Abramovic took over. Being a big club with more access to popularity based revenue has not helped Liverpool to be successful on the pitch. The main thing it's doone is enable their fans to become extremely annoying and pitiful. Abramovic owning Chelsea for alterior reasons to football has not brought about their downfall in the way many have repeatedly said it would.
It also annoys me when people go on about our revenue and sponsorship deals as if they are somehow compensating for the fact we get played off the park by Brighton. We know United are a big club, and a marketable club. This isn't caused by employing a CEO who is good at marketing things. It was just already the case, due to the club's history ON the pitch. There is no sane fan who genuinely thinks it's better the club signed a sponsoship deal with Nike than say, if we'd signed a centreback. The sponsorship deals will always be there.
Secondly, people talk about the club's size or popularity as if it allows for an evergrowing stream of resources and revenue. It doesn't. The club pushes harder than ever on sponsorships, marketing deals, TV money, etc. as do other clubs. There is a saturation point that will be reached for football clubs. We've already got there with the TV money and I suspect close to it with sponsorships. Companies will only pay what they think they will get back in terms of extra custom. Customers and fans will only pay what they can afford. It's all a bit of a nonsense and is also boring.
I don't think they've looked as good as last year but I don't think 8 games is much to judge any team on. I do think they've still looked the best team. Chelsea have been close but are very reliant on Hazard, while City are already playing without their best player, so if it's going to swing one way or another you'd have to think it'll much more likely be in their favour.
This is where it gets silly because the media this year in particular seem intent on painting a different picture to what is actually there. Liverpool have been lauded and talked about to the point you would think they have been the strongest team so far. Yet if you look at their games individually there are actually very few where they've put in a convincing performance. They have also not won in 4 which is the same thing a journalist seemed to insinuate Mourinho should be sacked for last week. Albeit the circumstances and fixtures are very different, but the point is if you look at it in reality I don't think Liverpool have really done anything yet to show they are capable of competing with City. They need to really push on from how they've played so far in order to do that, because a lot of their wins could easily have not been and over a season if that keeps happening, a number of them wont be.
I would comfortably say there is zero chance of us winning the league though. We've done little to address our weaknesses last year in terms of personel and even less to address them in terms of how we set up and approach games. A change in the attitude is the best we can hope for at the moment, as we saw on Saturday, which would certainly improve things but not enough to claw back City and all of the other top five, I wouldn't have thought.
I don't like reading too much into how a manager has fared in the past, at a different club, with a different set up, different players, in a different league, against different opponents. It's like saying "well I can breathe the air on this panet and Mars is also a planet so I will be able to breathe the air there too"
That's a legitimate point. The sample is too small. What makes the theory seem plausible is the view that his system is a bit complicated, it takes 2 years to properly implement it and in the 3rd year everything clicks. In contrast to Jose whose methods are supposed to work best within 12-18 months and then everything gets more difficult.
You’d expect that crowd for a league cup 3rd round not a champions league group game against Lyon
Last edited by a moderator: